{"id":2636,"date":"2013-02-15T19:26:57","date_gmt":"2013-02-15T19:26:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/heinleinsociety.org\/?p=2636"},"modified":"2021-03-18T12:49:30","modified_gmt":"2021-03-18T12:49:30","slug":"heinlein-readers-discussion-group-thursday-11-29-2001-900-p-m-est-pretty-boys-in-heinlein","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/heinleinsociety.org\/heinlein-readers-discussion-group-thursday-11-29-2001-900-p-m-est-pretty-boys-in-heinlein\/","title":{"rendered":"Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group Thursday 11-29-2001 9:00 P.M. EST ‘Pretty Boys’ in Heinlein"},"content":{"rendered":"

Heinlein Reader’s Discussion Group<\/h2>\n

Thursday 11-29-2001 9:00 P.M. EST<\/h2>\n

‘Pretty Boys’ in Heinlein<\/h2>\n

Click Here to Return to Index<\/a><\/p>\n

Here Begin The A.F.H. postings
\nNOTICE OF MEETING<\/p>\n

THE ROBERT A. HEINLEIN READING GROUP<\/p>\n

Dates and times: Thursday, November 29, 2001, 9 PM to midnight, EST; and Saturday, December 1,2001, 5 to 8 PM, EST<\/p>\n

[Note: this is three, NOT two weeks off, to avoid the American Thanksgiving Holiday.]<\/p>\n

Chat Co-host:Denis Paradis [AIM screen name: “Paradis401”]<\/p>\n

Place: On line in AIM chartroom “Heinlein Readers Group chat”<\/p>\n

See, the instructions on David Wright, Sr.’s page for downloading, installing and using AIM software, at<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.alltel.net\/~dwrighsr\/heinlein_1.html<\/p>\n

Theme:”Pretty Boys in Heinlein stories”<\/p>\n

Readings:Initially, the novel _Double Star_, but I’d be prepared for several others. Additional suggested reading: Heinlein’s forward to Theodore Sturgeon’s _Godbody_ and the novel itself.<\/p>\n

The next RAH-AIM chat will explore a theme dealing with characterization.<\/p>\n

Consider this: frequently, on AFH and elsewhere, some have perceived a deficiency, an unrealism, perhaps, they suggest, in Robert Heinlein’s portrayal of lead feminine characters. Here’s a mild, early example of that criticism, from J. Lincoln Turner’s A Guide Through the Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein (Gryphon Books, Brooklyn, NY, 1989, at 17): ” … the prototypical Heinlein heroine has red hair, a good figure, contralto voice and is highly intelligent and deadly in combat. She also falls totally in love with the hero and becomes beholden to his wishes (nothing like having super woman under your spell!). Heinlein, at least until his last period, tended to be a real Boy Scout. Although the heroine offers herself to him, unconditionally and because he has exhibited the finest sort of heroism to deserve her, he insists on marriage and everlasting fidelity. Under the circumstances, I think that even taking into consideration the time it was written in, this was rather quaint.”<\/p>\n

But consider this twist on the ‘quaintness’ of having Super Gal around: “I liked him, even on ten minutes acquaintance; he was the sort of big ugly-handsome galoot that women go for and men take orders from. He threaded his way gracefully through the room … ” and, then, contrast that description with this one: “Look at him. Ever see a rooster strutting through a barnyard? Sure, he’s the right size and shape and his skull looks a good bit like the Chief but there is nothing behind it. He’ll loose his nerve, blow his top, and give the whole thing away. He can’t play the part; he’s just a ham actor!”<\/p>\n

Now, I ask you: which one turns out to be the Heinlein hero? The natural leader–and the original assessment is right on the button–he is one; or the fellow who first describes him for us, the “conceited rooster,” who confirms that unflattering assessment only a few pages later when he tells us, his daddy used to tell him: “Larry, you are too damned pretty! If you don’t get off your lazy duff and learn the business, you are going to spend fifteen years as a juvenile, under the mistaken impression that you are an actor then wind up selling candy in the lobby. Stupid and pretty are the two worst vices in show business and you’re _both_.”<\/p>\n

Of course, this being a Heinlein novel, with the technique of ironic reversal constantly hanging in the background, the actor, the “Great Lorenzo,” is the hero, the pretty boy, of the 1956 novel Double Star, which won Heinlein’s first Hugo as best novel in 1957.<\/p>\n

So there you have it, our theme, “Pretty Boys in Heinlein stories,” and I think we’ll find quite a few.<\/p>\n

Among these, we might consider something else suggested by Denis Paradis, who will be our chat co-host and proposed this topic. Heinlein knew well and troubled himself in the last year of his life to write a forward for the posthumously published last novel of Theodore Sturgeon, _Godbody_ which some of us haven’t read, I’m sure. The forward is illuminating, and perhaps I’ll secure permission to reprint it in full here; but perhaps the novel Godbody itself may illuminate some thoughts on our theme. For those as I am who are not familiar with the Sturgeon novel, having three weeks’ time before our meetings to consider reading it, I republish here, with the author’s permission, a thoughtful and thought-provoking review of it:<\/p>\n

from Novels by Sturgeon, reviewed by Eric Weeks, at<\/p>\n

http:\/\/glinda.lrsm.upenn.edu\/~weeks\/if\/tedrev.html<\/p>\n

December 9, 1999<\/p>\n

“Godbody” by Theodore Sturgeon, Donald I Fine Inc, 1986.<\/p>\n

“This was Sturgeon’s last book, published posthumously, which he spent over ten years working on. My impression is that he considered this his most important novel. The basic gist of the book is that love is important, that sex is an important way to express love (but not the only way), that through love (and sex) one can find religion, and that perhaps modern organized religion is not the proper way to find religion. The book is told in eight chapters, each chapter told from the perspective of a different character.<\/p>\n

“Godbody, a man, has come to a small rural town. He is some sort of messiah, and the people he interacts with have their lives changed by him: they realize the important messages mentioned above. For two characters, who are happy, married, and in love, Godbody’s messages makes their marriage even better. For several unhappy characters, they learn how they can be happier. There are also two enemies of Godbody, two older people who control the town through a quiet system of blackmail, who see Godbody as a threat to their interests. Willa Mayhew writes the newspaper’s gossip column, and by threatening to reveal the secrets she knows, forces people to live according to her narrow-minded view of right and wrong. Andrew Merriweather is the town banker, who works with Willa to enforce his view of right and wrong, and make money in the process. These two characters are similar to characters seen in many other of Sturgeon’s stories; they are extremely sexually repressed. In this book, it is clear that all of their evilness flows from this.<\/p>\n

“That’s my one main objection to this book, that being sexually repressed is seen as such an overriding flaw. This is Sturgeon’s one gripe with organized religion, that it acts to repress us sexually (and this stifles love, even in a marriage, according to Sturgeon). This is a theme in a lot of Sturgeon’s writing — that the human race has some harmful ideas of right and wrong, when it comes to sexuality, and that much of these ideas comes from organized religion. (I should point out that he’s not against religion in general; one of the characters in this book is a minister, who eventually turns against organized religion, but remains religious nonetheless.) The message of Godbody boils down to sex is love is religion; I am not sure I agree that sexually unpressed people are also automatically good people.<\/p>\n

“Godbody is one of Sturgeon’s best books in terms of characterization. Each chapter is told first-person from a different viewpoint, and this technique is handled exquisitely. It is hard in a 160 page novel to get to know eight characters well, and Sturgeon pulls it off. The one character we never really know well is Godbody, although perhaps he is known more through the effect he has on the other characters. However, unlike Some of Your Blood, this book isn’t about characters (or plot) as much as it is about message. It’s hard to say much else about this book, other than it’s a fitting final work of Sturgeon. If you read this book, you will see some of Sturgeon’s best characterization, and get the full impact of what Sturgeon feels about love and how important love is. For anyone who is a fan of Sturgeon’s writing, this is a must-read 4 star book, more so than anything else he has written. Apart from that, I’d say it’s a 3 star book that is perhaps a little overwhelmed by its message.”<\/p>\n

* * * * *<\/p>\n

A further note of interest: Sturgeon’s true name was Edward Hamilton Waldo. Haven’t we seen at least two of those names applied to Heinlein characters? What about Waldo? Didn’t he, at least, become in a manner of speaking, a “pretty boy”?<\/p>\n

I’m looking forward to a long list of replies on this new topic of discussion and some good chats! See you all here, and in slightly less than three weeks.<\/p>\n

—
\nDavid M. Silver<\/p>\n

\n

The Heinlein Society<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n